Rick Steves Wants to Save the World, One Vacation at a Time
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I guess it’s the combination of cheap flights and instagram but if you want to enjoy yourself then forget about Kyoto and Venice etc and look into some less popular and less well known places instead.
And do the rest of us a favor and don’t location tag if you do discover something great.
As noted elsewhere, the cost of Intercontinental travel is dropping and the primary tourist destinations are overwhelmed, even in off seasons.
There are certainly places that are less busy but I wouldn't outright discourage anyone from traveling to the popular places. It's not that difficult to avoid the crowds and there are tons of things worth seeing.
I went in May when schools were getting out and I could tell the difference by the end of the week. Make appointments to the popular places to avoid the lines.
We then hopped a RyanAir flight to Bari because that's where my wife's family emigrated from. Thought we'd rent a car, spend 4-5 hours hopping around Bari and then move on to Naples. We ended up spending 4 nights and completely loved the city and the whole of Puglia. It ended up being the best part of the trip.
Maybe it was just expectations were reversed, but we truly loved Bari, and could have just skipped Venice and Naples and spent more time there. Not that Venice and Naples were disappointing, but they didn't stand out at the end of the trip.
Italy as a whole was wonderful. Can't wait to go back.
So if you're interested in that sort of unique experience I recommend looking up some nonprofits in need of volunteers.
There are obviously benefits to the people who go, but there is also potential of harm to the communities visited -- more so than just the usual tourism -- in the name of doing good. Skilled/educational trips like medical missions that provide relief and sustainable/appropriate skills transmission to providers in the local community tend to be the most positive/neutral, but efforts like helping to rebuild schools, etc. with volunteers who have no specific expertise tend to be problematic.
(issues include depriving livelihood from local builders, badly rebuilt buildings owing to lack of skill that have to be rebuilt, creating a culture of dependency, damage caused to the dignity of providers in local communities, the constant impermanency of relationships can especially affect children in the local community, etc.).
Many thoughtful missions organizations are aware of these issues and try to plan missions trips that mitigate such harm. There's a book called "When Helping Hurts" [1] that guides a lot of the new thinking in this space. Again good intentions are laudable, and we should not be dissuaded from doing good in the world, but acting with discernment and wisdom ensures that actual good, and not harm, is done in the visited communities.
When you see that amazing picture, what you don't see is the crowd of 100 people behind the photographer waiting for their turn to get the same picture.
Not only is it a bad experience for tourists, but it makes the locals resentful of what should be a valuable revenue stream.
It's not clear how to fix it. Most people who travel have limited vacation time and are making a logical decision to head for known interesting landmarks. There's no travel guide for how to find that one great off-the-beaten-path spot that you'll remember for the rest of your life while still making it back to your job on Monday.
That's pretty much what the Rick Steves books specialize in.
https://besthike.com/2018/08/23/hiking-the-troll-tongue-norw...
My strategy was to figure out what Dutch people visited in their own country and mimic that. That went quite well.
He has kind of a upright earnestness, combined with a sort of Germanic devotion to efficiency ("save money by sleeping on the train"; "plan a day's activity city-hopping by integrating a few key visits with the train schedule", "roll your trousers when packing"), that some nerds would generally find appealing.
I've returned to that book several times over the years when I feel like I need an attitude adjustment about how I travel, because it's easy to fall into the habit of just booking expensive accommodations. The result can be one-dimensional.
That was mainly a problem of the US market, though. In the 1990s the American travel guide market, i.e. the sort of guides you would find in any mall bookshop, was completely dominated by Fodors and Frommers, which aimed at those with rather high budgets. So, Rick Steves could offer an alternative to that within North America. Meanwhile, however, in the UK and Australia Lonely Planet and Rough Guides were more widely available. (Not to mention some of the travel guide series in the German- and French-speaking world). Those guides opened up travel to even lower budgets than Rick Steves could.
For me, the thing was that ETTBD presented, explicitly, a whole travel philosophy/attitude that I found inspiring at the time.
i associate rick steves with sick days, nick stellino, and pati jinich.
Unfortunately, it is no longer politic to utter that sentence.
Edit: typos
http://budapestchristmas.com/budapest-outdoor-ice-rink-in-th...
I'm pretty sure Japan doesn't celebrate Christmas. So if you don't care about celebrating it, or would really like to just get away from all the Xmas hoopla (esp. if you're single; Christmas is a terrible time for single people, and suicide rates go way up at that time of year), Japan seems like a great place to go. Stay away from the European countries though.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-kfc-became-a-christmas-t...
A round trip transatlantic flight from New York to Berlin emits 2.4 metric tons of CO2e per person.
https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=16976...
The UN says global emissions per capita needs to drop to 1.5 metric tons/year by 2050 if we have any hope of keeping to a 2C temperature rise this century.
I wonder if there's any hope of electric planes hitting the energy density needed for commercial airlines, or algae based plane fuel taking off. I would even use a slower or more expensive mean of travel if it meant the emissions were drastically reduced.
https://www.treehugger.com/aviation/worlds-first-flight-powe...
You can also offset your footprint by buying land and planting trees. With some handkerchief math you'll be able to fly without any worries.
Still, planting 1000 trees and making sure they exist for 40 years makes your footprint invisible.
I'm not saying those are bad choices, or that there are not other ethical arguments for them. But let's be clear-eyed about the drastic level of structural change required to stabilize (let alone reduce, let alone get to net-negative) CO2 emissions.
(And anyone who chose to have children is automatically disqualified from talking about individual carbon impacts.)
Ultimately my problem is it is hypocritical to have concern for climate change while jetting around the world.
Eventually I would like to get into green and cleantech and hopefully contribute to a bigger impact on emissions than a single lifetimes worth of actions ever could.
There are other things limiting travel is affecting, such as reducing the amount of income to the countries travelled to that otherwise really need it. But I can't really measure that to any significant degree either.
I did it for different reasons than you, but it sounds like it might be a nice fit. Although now that I've said that, there are admittedly another set of environmental problems from the anti-foul paint, so perhaps it's just trading one issue for another.
It will keep you from enjoying anything. People believe they shouldn't have kids because "there's too many people". Or spend the $10 on a reusable bottle of water they are going to lose instead of buying the $1 and giving $9 to your cause of choice (charity, church, weed for the homeless).
The only way to really go zero-emissions, which would really benefit everyone (I guess, by this logic) is to just off yourself.
But I'd argue that you could do more good, have more potential to solve these problems you are concerned about, by exposing yourself to things outside your comfort zone. Other places, people, cultures, great works of art and engineering, and rich experiences.
All of the planes you ride on are going to fly anyway, get out there and get it!
It feels gross to have a smart phone or computer built with conflict minerals (they all essentially are). It feels gross to have more than affordable clothes assembled in sweatshops. I'm not the one setting up these systems but it feels gross to benefit from them. Don't tell people to ignore those feelings, ignoring them is alienating.
Also, I think if you off yourself the carbon in your body will eventually be emitted? :P
This is true though. There are too many people on the planet, and you shouldn't have kids if it aligns with you beliefs.
Luckily, countries are already headed in that direction (fertility rates below replacement rate) [1]. But we should do more with carbon tax funds to further incentivize this outcome.
You're already here, stay for a bit.
Regarding nuclear, I'm not going to beat a dead horse in this thread.
As for nuclear, I'll beat the dead horse: we don't need it (at least fission). We need more renewable power, especially solar, since 1500W/m^3 hits the Earth's surface all day long. We just need to figure out how to make solar panels in a more environmentally-friendly manner (better recycling of their materials, etc.), and deploy them in more places, especially in places where they don't have negative effects, such as on rooftops, over highways, etc.
Then, we need to figure out how to have humans live in a more environmental manner, by increasing density. If most of the population lived at the density of Manhattan or Tokyo, we wouldn't have all these complaints about humans taking up too much land area.
The problems associated with overpopulation can be solved with technology and policy, if we really want to.
"According to the General Social Survey data, 41 percent of Democrats are without a steady partner, compared with only 29 percent of Republicans. Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to not have a steady partner: 51 percent vs. 32 percent, respectively."
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/lifestyle/article/It-s-not-just-you-N...
I saw one of Rick's show commentaries last week and he's very specifically on a crusade of "Travel defeats ignorance"
Are Republicans going to have more kids than Democrats? I have no idea, Paul Ryan has had three and says he's "doing his part" [2]. The trend downward in fertility rate across the board is still obvious.
[1] https://ifstudies.org/blog/number-2-in-2018-baby-bust-fertil... (Number 2 in 2018: Baby Bust—Fertility is Declining the Most Among Minority Women)
[2] https://www.newsweek.com/paul-ryan-wants-you-have-more-kids-... (Paul Ryan Wants You To Have More Kids)
From: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-mi...
"Results from the 2010 Census showed that racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 91.7% of the nation’s growth since 2000. Most of that increase from 2000 to 2010—56%—was due to Hispanics."
"The changing profile of the nation’s youngest residents also stems from the fact that some groups, especially Hispanics, have higher numbers of children than do non-Hispanic whites."
"Among Hispanics, the total fertility rate is 2.4. For non-Hispanic whites and for non-Hispanic Asians, it is 1.8."
From: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2017/09/baby-boom-bir...
"In 2014, blacks and Asians gave birth to almost 17 percent more children than the national average, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Hispanics gave birth to 32 percent more than the national average."
So, in summary, why are you posting obvious falsehoods? There's plenty of data showing that your assertions are plainly wrong. This was all from a very quick Google search, one of them being the government's own census site. There's tons more.
This is just plain bad reasoning, for obvious reasons.
It is not “hypersensitive” to care about the CO2 impact of air travel. In fact it is a large blind spot for many otherwise progressive-minded people. These travel shows genuinely espouse progressive principles of learning from other cultures and yet almost never is there any mention of the significant CO2 impact. All the little things you might do throughout the year to lower your impact and get to where we need to be in 12 years are easily wiped out by just one plane trip. It’s good to talk about it.
Taking the bus instead of the car to work will "pay for" like 4 cross-continental trips a year. If you take a bike instead, it's closer to 10.
Only if you want to maintain the same levels of unsustainable CO2 output. That's totally unacceptable. We need to get to as close to zero emissions as we can as fast as we can, which means taking mass transit to work, living closer to work, and not flying so much.
> Driving the same trip is 2500 pounds - more than 4x.
Not if you do it in an electric, sustainably powered car (or better yet train).
Your decomposing body will release nitrates, methane and all sorts of other toxic crap into the air and groundwater. Not to mention the resources consumed in building a casket and your permanent occupation of landspace even after death. Graveyards are all-around terrible for the environment.
Cremation is a little better but emits a ton of greenhouse gas. Burning formaldehyde and mercury is bad news, not to mention the environmental destruction involved in extracting the natural gas needed to do it.
Even going into space and launching yourself into the sun has a tremendous environmental cost.
Everything we do produces emissions. The closest one can come to a zero-emission death might be a sky burial.
Killing yourself is absolutely the best way to help the world if your biggest concern in life is global warming and the only way you know how to help is by limiting your own consumption / CO2 production.
Of course, you shouldn't kill yourself, because there are many other, much better ways to help the environment than limiting personal consumption.
Arguably the best way would be to help push for more nuclear power.
Consider Nestle taking tens of millions of gallons of water from drought-struck California for $524 a year, even as residents are urged to cut back their water consumption.
Consider consumers buying millions of gallons of water from Nestle when they could just drink tap water...
I think what you mean to say is not enough people care about ethical consumption to reduce pollution to the level you think we need to be at. We should instead regulate industry so that it doesn't depend on individuals making ethical decisions with their consumption, because most of them won't. Perfectly reasonable position, but you don't have to say it like there's some vast evil conspiracy out there.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/21/amazon-air-expands-with-10...
If no, then I applaud your sacrifice; preach it, brother. Spreading awareness and sensitiivty is critical.
If yes, then we get into the nasty business of setting goals and priorities. Or, rather, the nasty business of having our priorities set for us. Or can you see an achievable path that doesn't lead to a green coat of paint on the status quo?
So for $111, you can fly once a year without a net carbon impact. That's so small relative to the cost of the flight you could do it every time you fly.
Social investment (via government or other channels) into accelerating developments like this is why people need to get political to shift how the default decisions get made.
And one of the comments suggested that you can offset your carbon impact by paying someone to plant trees. I'm not seriously considering that for the next time my wife and I fly anywhere... And possibly just to offset our yearly carbon footprint anyhow.
So, what I'm really intrigued by is the thought that you could takeoff with chemical fuel and cruise with electric or fuel cells.
Or, as you mention, there's always syngas. That might be the holy grail that saves us from ourselves.
I believe economic forces and regulations will be the primary drivers of changing modes of transport, so if it makes economic sense to keep operating jet fuel aircraft, that will be an option for those who can afford it and don't have misgivings about it. But for planning and resilience, there's value in envisioning how a world with very limited jet fuel air travel would look like, and whether portions of its role ought to be taken over by other modes of travel, or if societies merely need to adjust to its loss.
Our world's globalized economy greatly depends on the movement of goods and sometimes people, but for goods, the pace of water transport is often good enough, coupled with its much lower cost per amount and time. Much of this transport uses some of the lowest grades of fuel you can get from fossil oil. To change this, the price of these fuels would have to soar or the fuel would need to be banned. Let's suppose this extreme case comes and fuel oil is no longer an option. A rapid migration to nuclear propulsion for merchant fleets is both politically untenable and economically improbable. Solar/battery propulsion doesn't have the energy density, which leaves wind-like propulsion as one of the only contenders, with the others being simply higher grades of hydrocarbons like gasoline and compressed gas. One's carbon-free, slow, and presents a significant change in show ships are built, while the other needs changes only to the engines, fuel lines, and fuel tanks, re-uses existing industrial expertise, and maintains the pace of travel -- but isn't carbon-free. Which one do you think companies would chose?
But reading recent posts on HN about how tourists are ruining Europe (and other places) makes me wonder if his message has become obsolete.
After all, air travel contributes to climate change. And I for one do not relish jumping on the QM2 - which surely burns fossil fuels - to spend two weeks (one week each way) traversing the Atlantic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Queen_Mary_2
Cheap airfares contribute to overtourism. Just ask Dubrovnik.
AirBnB has priced locals out of their own housing markets. Just ask Venice.
That said, I hope he continues doing his thing.
I recently visited Madrid, a city I lived in nearly 20 years ago. What struck me was not just the suffocating crowds of tourists in the very center of the city compared to back then. I also found that what used to be quiet residential neighborhoods (after all, they lack any particular sights) now had a distinct amount of tourists walking around with suitcases or backpacks – I assumed that AirBnB was now spreading tourists throughout the whole city.
AirBnB can be good and bad. I used AirBnB in Germany last year because the hotel rates in Nuremberg were ridiculous because it was tourist season; I stayed at a private home, in an extra bedroom that used to be their kid's room (now moved out). It was a great experience: I saved a bunch of money, I got to see a small town outside the main city that I otherwise wouldn't have seen (not really much to see there, but it was good seeing someplace "normal" that tourists never see), and I got to talk to the homeowner with his broken English and my broken German. I wouldn't have had an experience like that in a hotel, and there was no negative effect on the housing for locals since I was only renting an unused bedroom, not a whole house. This, to me, is what AirBnB is really supposed to be about.
https://twitter.com/juliagalef/status/885211413618212864
She lists examples like reading and hanging out with different people, but I'd love to hear more alternatives. Trying new hobbies is another great one
That said, I think people who enjoy Rick Steves would also be the type to make an effort to get the authentic experience. Could be my own projection.
The tweet began with a premise. If the premise for travel is “broadening your horizons” then the assertion is that there are far cheaper, more accessible ways to do that than hopping on a transatlantic jet and spending a week in a foreign place. There is a real conversation to be had about the impact of tourism on local ways of life and local economies (both in good ways and bad).
If the premise for travel is “because I want to”, then by all means go ahead...
It’d be helpful if people thought a bit more about what other people are saying and were more charitable about interpretations instead of finding the first reason to get mad.
> It’d be helpful if people thought a bit more about what other people are saying and were more charitable about interpretations instead of finding the first reason to get mad.
I'm not mad - I just think it was a stupid, self-back-patting point.
2. Her assertion was that she thinks it’s overrated, costly, and inefficient. You did nothing to address those points.
If you think travel can be cheaper at achieving the premise, is not overrated at achieving the premise, or that it’s a more efficient ways of achieving the premise of “broadening horizons” than alternatives then that’s a relevant conversation. If you can effectively make those points then we’d have a real conversation on our hands.
Saying it’s “stupid, self-back-patting” is not productive and misses the point entirely.
2. Yes, and that is what I take issue with, and yes, I did address the point. She says that it is 'overrated, super-inefficient way to "broaden your horizons"', and I said that there is more than one way to broaden your horizons than to talk to people who live far away from you, such as going to historical locations or natural settings.
Hanging out with other people who are wealthy/liberal enough to make it to and live in San Francisco will also do the same. Amplify the echo chamber rather than break it down.
I grew up in India and the Middle East in a very different sociocultural background with different values than the west coast, liberal, tech-elite culture I live in now and I find many of the people around me now have a much narrower world-view despite their education and 'reading'.
The best part is his journal called High Notes, in which he writes his deepest thoughts while being stoned.
“Make a rug with vacuum marks, so it always looks freshly vacuumed.”
The article also touches on how his obsessiveness has hurt his relationships. Including how he snapped at his children for not wanting to power-travel like he does.
Point is, it's never been cheaper to travel internationally. Enjoy it while it's still true.
America is just plain overpriced. The only thing that's harder about international travel is that so many people don't speak English in other countries, but that's also part of the fun of it.
Rick has also been on the board of NORML forever.
Warning: If you travel enough you might come down with "Cosmopolitan bias", which is evidently a bad thing in some circles.
Joke aside, not everyone can afford time off vacationing from work, and even with PTO covering their time off.
More discussion on that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17778108
For example:
San Francisco <-> Milan, May 7 - May 20, Norwegian Air+Easy Jet: $598.
Air Bnb for the duration: Central Loft, $70/night, 13 nights, $910. (you can find much lower as well, if you want to go for the minimum).
Shop local, cook & eat in the apartment, $20/day? $280.
Spend 13 days walking and exploring Milan for under $2,000.
That's not a trivial amount, but it's not the $2,000 air fare and $150 night hotel and $50 day food type of money, either.
A lot of folks, however, aren't comfortable with putting themselves out there into an airbnb (or equivalent) and fending for themselves with local markets and transport. It's really not that hard (depending on where you go and your tolerance for embarrassment and alienation), but there's definitely a language and cultural barrier that needs to be overcome or worked around.
I think that Rick Steves, in his unique way, makes a lot of people feel more comfortable with getting out there. It really is so much better to travel without a tour company mediating the experience.
It's also not hard to get by in most places in Europe, particularly Scandanavia. Most folks there speak English, among other languages.
That's great if you are near a large city like San Francisco.
However, Madison, WI <-> Milan, May 7 - May 20, United: $1304 economy, 21h travel time.
It IS the $2000 airfare ( or approaching it).
Now, ORD <-> MIL is $687, but MSN -> ORD is at least a 2 1/2 hour trip by car, longer by bus.
It's a $60/rt ride from Madison to O'Hare on the Van Galder bus. If you drive, it's whatever cost to take your car plus at least $10/day at ORD.
I used to pay ~$1500 CAD from Ottawa, Canada to Manila, Philippines. Now that I’m aware of deals and have a flexible schedule/remote-work-policy I scoff at any trip with the same itinerary that’s > $800.
> Above all, Steves told us, do not be afraid. The people of the world are wonderful, and the planet we share is spectacular.
I've done a small splash of international travel. But in my career I've been lucky enough to be exposed to people from lots of places in the world, and I've drawn the same conclusion. When people here in the US ruminate about global events and foreigners I wonder if they've ever really met any. Because you very quickly draw the conclusion -- "Hey, these people aren't very different at all -- they have family and friends and they go to work and care about their family and friends just like me!"
For example, in the mid 90s we went to the Dominican Republic for a week, and we were oh-so-broke. We stayed in a hut (actual hut) behind a friend's house; we borrowed their bikes to go to town to buy groceries (including food items where I had no earthly idea what they were); we cooked on a tiny alcohol camp stove (and when it ran out, we discovered that the alcohol it used was a bottle of rum). We saw nothing that was a tourist destination; it was all "just folks." ...and we got a huge amount of understanding about what it meant to live in a poor country without resources.
I've also stayed in 5-star hotels in Paris and indulged myself for a week falling into every tourist vortex. That's perfectly fine, too, because it's okay to appreciate beauty. However, you appreciate it _better_ when you know its context and history; I highly recommend Rick Steves _Europe Through The Back Door_ because it gives us Americans a better sense of European history, not to mention how it affected art, architecture, etc.
Mind you, Steves' travel guides are rarely my favorites. He's not a foodie, and I regularly choose destinations based on what I can eat. And he's opinionated, which I appreciate, until we disagree on those opinions. (He's meh on the Black Forest, and it's one of my favorite places.) Then again, I'm not his target audience. I think he's a treasure nonetheless.
You might enjoy watching Rudy Maxa's cheeks instead, then.
One of the very best travel guide series is those books by Anton Krotov and friends written in Russian. While these travelers have gradually become pretty bourgeois and fans of posh train travel (which allows them to guide also ordinary holidaymakers), they spent many years traveling the world by hitchhiking, sleeping in mosques, etc. on absolutely tiny budgets (like 0–5€/day). Besides writing travel guides for the Russian-speaking market, they also do their fair share of public-speaking visits to small towns to encourage young people across the USSR and Eastern Europe to set out traveling even if they have little money.
Today if you come into contact with shoestring travelers in South America or Africa, you find that a lot of them are Russians and Poles. Their comparative poverty didn’t stop them from traveling transcontinentally, and it has always puzzled me that some comparatively better off Americans complain they can’t indulge in their wanderlust dreams due to lack of money.